Machine learning of pair-contact process with diffusion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pair-contact process with diffusion (PCPD), a generalized model of the ordinary pair-contact process (PCP) without diffusion, exhibits a continuous absorbing phase transition. Unlike the PCP, whose nature of phase transition is clearly classified into the directed percolation (DP) universality class, the model of PCPD has been controversially discussed since its infancy. To our best knowledge, there is so far no consensus on whether the phase transition of the PCPD falls into the unknown university classes or else conveys a new kind of non-equilibrium phase transition. In this paper, both unsupervised and supervised learning are employed to study the PCPD with scrutiny. Firstly, two unsupervised learning methods, principal component analysis (PCA) and autoencoder, are taken. Our results show that both methods can cluster the original configurations of the model and provide reasonable estimates of thresholds. Therefore, no matter whether the non-equilibrium lattice model is a random process of unitary (for instance the DP) or binary (for instance the PCP), or whether it contains the diffusion motion of particles, unsupervised learning can capture the essential, hidden information. Beyond that, supervised learning is also applied to learning the PCPD at different diffusion rates. We proposed a more accurate numerical method to determine the spatial correlation exponent [Formula: see text], which, to a large degree, avoids the uncertainty of data collapses through naked eyes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it